How Special Are “Gay Rights?” (Part II)

How Special Are “Gay Rights?” (Part II)

By |2020-06-09T21:30:56-04:00July 10th, 2020|Categories: Marriage & Family|Tags: , , , |

My last article introduced the extreme demands of homophile groups, demands which deserve the name “special rights” because they far surpass the rights recognized to belong to humanity in general.  This article lists many real-life instances of the special rights movement in action.

human rights with four hands

 

Special Rights Activism in Public Policy

In order to enact the “special rights” agenda, homophile activists must completely eradicate opposing viewpoints from every aspect of the public arena.  They want to make certain that the ugly features of the homosexual lifestyle and the terroristic history of the “gay rights” movement are not only completely hidden from view, but entirely forgotten by the public.  Believe it or not, homosexuals are beginning to demand that those who oppose their agenda simply be erased from history, following the example of Lenin.1

Leading homosexual activists have sought to censor all speeches given by political candidates.  As one example, the $40 million-a-year homophile group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) demanded that the Republican Party suppress any speeches or performances at the 2004 GOP convention by anyone they deemed “homophobic.”  The HRC even drew up a long list of entertainers and speakers that they wanted banned from all public speaking engagements because they had at some time in the past opposed some aspect of the homosexual agenda.2  The majority of those submitting comments to various homosexual-oriented blogs applauded the HRC demands; very few were courageous enough to mention the obvious dangers they posed to free speech.

To illustrate how absurd this situation really is, try to imagine the howls of protest that would arise from the left if pro-family activists demanded that the Democrats prohibit speech by anyone who had expressed anti-Christian views in their past.

Unfortunately, homophiles are not satisfied with silencing political candidates.  They believe that all public figures must be forced to toe the line.

For example, actress Jada Pinkett Smith received an award from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations in 2005.  During her acceptance speech, she told women in the audience that “You can have it all ― a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career.…” Hours later, Harvard’s Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance condemned her statement, calling it “heteronormative,” and demanded that future speakers be allowed to speak of man-woman families only if they also approved of homosexual “marriage.”

The homophiles not only believe that those who publicly oppose their agenda should be muzzled; they often demand that they should be severely punished as well.  Homosexual activist groups have demanded that those who oppose gay “marriage” be forbidden to run for public office, be banned from working for government in any capacity, be barred from attending law school or from practicing law, and be fired from their jobs without recourse.

In September 2013, the Democrat-controlled city council of San Antonio, Texas passed a sweeping ordinance stating:

No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability.

The ordinance does not contain a religious exemption, meaning that those who are members of pro-family faiths or who have, say, expressed their disapproval of same-sex “marriage” in a letter to their local newspaper will be permanently banned from seeking public office.3

marriage roses bouquet and rings on pillow

Meanwhile, to our north, influential Canadian homophile groups have demanded that anyone who believes that marriage should be a union between one man and one woman must be forbidden from attending law school or from practicing law.

The Pro-LGBT Agenda in the Department of Justice

The Canadians are getting more and more aggressive at trampling the rights of those who oppose the homosexual special rights agenda, but the United States is not far behind.

In 2013, the United States Department of Justice published an internal memorandum entitled “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.”  It says “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This is a threat, and not even a subtle one.  The memorandum uses KGB-style language to intimidate:  “DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”  The document even compels support by directing, “DO display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

In other words, if you work for the Department of Justice, you must display some visible symbol of your support of the homophile movement, even if you in good conscience disagree with it.

Among several other truly ridiculous directives, the memo commands DOJ employees “DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

In other words, play along with the corporate delusion or you will be punished.

Not one homosexual activist group questioned the breathtaking arrogance of this directive; in fact, most supported it.

Once again, imagine the outrage that the elitist left would display if the DOJ had instead commanded all of its employees to display crucifixes or images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in their offices.

Even More Examples…

This blatant form of coercion is even seeping into the institute that guards our freedoms, the United States armed forces.  If the guardians can be deprived of their freedoms, what chance do the rest of us have?

Senior Master Sergeant Phillip Monk had a distinguished career in the Air Force, unblemished by even the slightest disciplinary action.  In August 2012, his commanding officer, Major Elisa Valenzeula, an openly practicing lesbian, ordered him to make a statement that he supported homosexual “marriage.”  He politely explained that he could not answer since it would violate his conscience.  Valenzuela told him that all military personnel must now support homosexual “marriage,” and fired him.  When he went to the press, the Air Force threatened him with a court martial.4

Some homophile groups go even further.  In 2013, Italian homophiles attempted to sneak through a so-called “anti-homophobia” law just before the Italian Chamber of Deputies broke for its summer recess.  This law would punish anyone who is a member of a group that lobbies against homosexual “marriage,” and features mandatory penalties of up to six years in prison.  The law even specified that pro-family activists, once released from prison, be forced to work for homosexual groups!  The homophile group Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S) lobbied for the harsh penalties, which were also supported by U.S.-based Amnesty International.5

Naturally, if the homosexuals are to have a tight stranglehold on society, they must also have control of the schools.  We have already seen many examples of the “sensitivity” (indoctrination) classes that have been forced upon our high school and college students.  Some homosexual activist groups are now demanding that all school textbooks refer to homosexuals only in favorable terms, and that they be prohibited from even mentioning the words “mother” and “father.”  In May 2006, the California Senate passed a bill demanded by homosexual groups and legislators.  This bill removed sex-specific terms such as “Mom” and “Dad” from all textbooks, and requires students to learn only positive things about homosexuals and homosexuality, the only group so protected.6

books stack textbooks education research

The demand for such a privileged position is at the heart of the special rights movement.  Only those who belong under the “LGBT” banner are allowed the right to no opposition, so that alternate viewpoints cannot even be heard.

Special Rights Activists: “Death to Our Opponents!”

These elements of the homosexual special rights agenda are certainly extreme.  However, nothing approaches the fanaticism of those who vocally condemn the death penalty — except for those who oppose them.  If this belief were held by only a handful of people, it would not be distressing; however, it appears to be a “mainline” belief among activist homophiles, as the following description shows.

The Rape and Murder of Mary Stachowicz

51-year-old mother of four Mary Stachowicz confronted homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez and asked him “Why do you sleep with boys?”  In response, Gutierrez raped, tortured and sodomized Mary, and then stabbed her so many times he bent the tip of his hunting knife.  He stuffed her body in a crawl space and finally confessed two days later.

Predictably, no formal condemnations of Mrs. Stachowicz’s murder were ever issued by leading homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD).  In fact, many of the thousands of homosexuals and homophiles who posted comments about the brutal murder on the Web said that she deserved the death penalty for harassing Gutierrez.

Typical of the thousands of comments by the homophiles who applauded Mary’s savage murder included:

  • “The b**** had it coming to her.  I’m glad he killed her” (a San Francisco man on Yahoo).
  • “The woman who did such great evil is dead, but unfortunately the evil and the church and the society which creates it is not” (self-identified homosexual James Wagner).
  • “Maybe [Stachowicz’s murder] will strike fear in the hearts of a few fundamentalists.  Where do I send a check for his (Gutierrez’s) defense fund?” (James Wagner’s “boyfriend,” Barry).
  • “I really don’t feel sorry for her.  She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist.  Too bad for her” (“Iris,” in a posting on the ACLU Online Forum).
  • “The RCC [Roman Catholic Church] is responsible for continuing to put forth a silly, stupid and factually wrong doctrine of ‘objective disorders’ and ‘intrinsic moral evil’ regarding homosexuality.  For all the evil that that doctrine has done and continues to do, they have a lot to be held accountable for” (“JodyW,” on the Naked Writing web log).7

There is no question that Mary Stachowicz harassed Nicholas Gutierrez.  But does the crime of harassment really merit a penalty of death by rape and torture?  Apparently, many homosexuals believe so.

The Lawsuit of Scott Lively

And many others believe that those who speak publicly against the homosexual agenda should also be put to death — or at least imprisoned for life.

In 2011, Pastor Scott Lively, a longtime pro-family activist, traveled to Uganda to warn the nation about the consequences of the homosexual lifestyle.  Shortly after his visit, a leading Ugandan homosexual activist, David Kato, was murdered.  Partly due to this murder, the homophile group SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda), assisted by the American group Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), filed a lawsuit against Pastor Lively in Federal court, accusing him of “crimes against humanity,” as well as conspiracy and “violating the laws of nations.”

These groups neglected to mention that Kato was murdered by another homosexual man.

“Crimes against humanity,” as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, “are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings.”

It is important to note that most people convicted of crimes against humanity in modern times have been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.  Some are even sentenced to death in particularly egregious cases.

woman-in-lawsuit-judge

Not one homosexual activist group questioned the charges brought against Lively.

Since when does the presentation of an alternate opinion deserve the death penalty?

The Special Rights Movement Worldwide

The desire of homosexual activists to force society into their desired mold is certainly not limited to North America and Europe.  They ardently desire to stamp out all resistance in every nation of the world at any cost.  As long as there is anyone, anywhere, who disapproves of them, they will continue to attempt to eradicate opposition.

Emboldened by the Obama administration, homosexual activist groups are loudly demanding that other (primarily African) nations change their religious and social beliefs, cultures and customs to accommodate homosexuality.  If these nations do not comply, the homosexuals have no problem demanding that international disaster aid be cut off, with the result that thousands or tens of thousands will die painful and unnecessary deaths.   This means that Africans must knuckle under or die, and apparently some homophiles believe that their rights are more important than the very lives of other people.8

Blood Donation in Quebec

This egocentric belief is not limited to international aid.  Leading homosexual groups have demanded the right to give blood for more than two decades, even though homosexual men have an extremely high rate of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis and other diseases.  As one example, homosexual activist Joel Pinard of Quebec City admitted that he lied in order to donate blood.  He said of guidelines that prevent gay men from donating blood, “It’s a stupid, archaic rule.  So I made a false statement, declaring that I was heterosexual…to challenge Hemaquebec.”

Hemaquebec is the Quebec Province’s blood collection agency.  It tried to recall the blood products derived from Pinard’s donation, but they had already been used.  Pinard lied on the blood donor’s questionnaire because he claimed that it fostered the mistaken perception that AIDS is a gay disease.  In other words, Pinard believes that his desire for acceptance takes precedence over other people’s lives.9  Once again, comments on homosexual activist blogs took Pinard’s side by a wide margin.

Pinard is not alone in his beliefs.  Homosexuals are so fanatical in their pursuit of revoking the blood ban that they have organized many boycotts of blood drives among all liberals, both homosexual and heterosexual.10

There is ample medical evidence supporting the ban on homosexuals giving blood.  In the early 1990s, about 20,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and hepatitis due to donations by primarily homosexual men, and most of them died.11  Few homophiles expressed sympathy for the thousands of Canadians who died needlessly due to the selfishness of homosexual activists.  An Ontario Superior Court of Justice upheld the ban on homosexuals giving blood in 2010, ruling that giving blood is not a constitutional right, although this has not silenced homosexual demands in the least.12

By comparison, anyone who is even suspected of being exposed to malaria is automatically banned from giving blood for one year, or, if living in a nation where malaria is found, for three years.13  However, we don’t see people exposed to malaria griping about how they are being “stigmatized.”

Special Rights in Religion and Science

The greatest enemy of the homosexual special rights agenda is true religion.  Therefore, it has come under withering attack by homophile groups over the past two decades in their drive to establish their beliefs as a central element of the new world faith.

Homosexual activists stridently condemn even the most trivial limit on their activities as religiously motivated, and dismiss any concerns — even those based upon science — as paranoid Catholic or fundamentalist stupidity.  In other words, they simply point at Christian beliefs about homosexuality and allege that they are invalid and cannot be used as a basis for law.  It does not occur to the homophiles that they are also forcing a religious viewpoint on the rest of us ― the Unitarian view that homosexuality is harmless and acceptable, and that homosexual “marriage” must be legalized worldwide.  This means that homophiles demand the right to impose their religious beliefs on the entire world.

In Europe and Canada, a number of pastors who have read what the homosexuals deem “anti-gay” passages in the Bible have been fined and imprisoned, and there are serious homophile attempts to have the Bible declared “hate literature.”14  To get around the problem of Scripture verses such as Romans 1, the homosexuals have even published their own version of the Bible called the “Queen James Version” (QJV), which is sanitized of all passages that might be interpreted as being critical of homosexuality.

No, I am still not making any of this up.

Hatred of the Catholic Church

Among religious opponents of the homosexual special rights agenda, the Catholic Church stands alone.  Therefore, it is no surprise that it is subjected to the most consistent and vicious attacks.

vatican-city-rome-st-peter-s-st-peter-s-square

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual activity is “intrinsically disordered.”  Homosexuals have demanded that the Church change this teaching to suit their doctored public opinion polls.15  The Church teaches that communicants must avoid committing blasphemy against Our Lord, and approach the communion rail in a state of grace.  Homosexual activists demand that this teaching must also be discarded (see the Rainbow Sash Movement in the United States and Australia, for example).

Priests in other nations have been targeted as well.  For example, homosexuals living very public “gay” lifestyles in defiance of Church teachings hit several Spanish priests with lawsuits for refusing them Communion.16

Homosexuals are the only group of individuals who believe that they have a natural right to be ordained as Catholic priests.  In Colombia, homosexual groups sued Archbishop Fabio Betancourt Tirado of Manizales after he dismissed a seminarian for extensive public homosexual activity and for robbery.  The former seminarian then accused the Archbishop of discrimination against him and filed a lawsuit.  A homosexual-friendly judge ordered the Archbishop jailed, but stayed his order at the last minute.  The seminarian was supported by Colombian homophile groups throughout the conduct of the lawsuit.17

The Catholic Church is not the only denomination that has to deal with such ridiculous homophile demands.  A [naturally] anonymous homosexual in an open sexual relationship with his male “partner” brought a Human Rights Tribunal complaint against the Anglican Bishop of Auckland, New Zealand, Reverend Ross Bay, for not allowing him to become a priest.  Bishop Bay did not permit him to enter a seminary simply because no man in a sexual relationship should become a priest, not because he was a homosexual.18

No other group of people of any philosophy thinks that it has the right to dictate the teachings of a church.

Homosexuals have mocked and ridiculed the Catholic faith for decades, often parodying its most cherished beliefs, such as the Holy Mass, through blasphemous plays and “street theater” (see the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” if you have a cast iron stomach, at www.thesisters.org and www.theabbey.org).  Homosexuals, meanwhile, stridently demand that their lifestyle be protected from parody and mockery.  This is probably the most vivid example of a special right demanded by homosexuals when dealing with religion.

Predictably, when a law is passed protecting religion from mockery (identical to the ones the homosexuals demand for themselves), they shriek with outrage.  For example, homosexuals were in an uproar about a Russian law prohibiting “public actions expressing open disrespect for society and committed in an effort to offend the religious feelings of believers.”19

LGBT Denial of Science

Not even provable scientific facts are safe from homophile demands.

As just one example, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) volunteer John Dillinger was at Grand Valley State University when he told a transgendered person that sex is determined at conception, a simple fact that is described in every medical school embryology and fetology textbook.  The transgender person complained to police, saying that his statement “offended” him.  Campus police escorted Dillinger off the campus and a bias report was filed against him.  If he had been a student at the University, he would have most likely been severely punished or even dismissed.20

Neither religion nor science is allowed to stand in the way of the special rights that so many homosexuals believe they must have.

Conclusion

The most dangerous special right demanded by radical homosexuals is their monopoly of the discussion.  Whenever anyone voices even the mildest objection to any element of the special rights agenda, they are immediately shouted down with a chorus of obnoxious voices chanting “HOMOPHOBE!”  While homophiles demand the right to relentlessly and ruthlessly stereotype anyone who opposes any element of their agenda for any reason whatsoever as “homophobes,” “haters” and “bigots,” they claim that anyone who dares stereotype gays in any manner must be charged with a felony hate crime.

Unfortunately, this attitude is not unique to homosexual activists.  The Culture of Death says that if you oppose widespread voter fraud or unrestrained immigration, you are obviously a racist.21  If you are against gruesome third-trimester abortions of viable babies for convenience purposes, then you must be a foot soldier in the “war against women.”  And if you oppose any element of the special rights agenda, then you are, by definition, a bigot and a hater.

It is one thing to refuse to debate because you think your viewpoint is so superior you have nothing to gain.  It is another thing entirely to state as a fact that your opposition has no right to express their opinions.  This is why the homophiles do not listen to their opponents, do not reply to them, and do not even give them the respect of consideration or analysis.  They instead just reflexively condemn them as “bigots,” “haters” and “homophobes.”

Radical homosexuals have become accustomed to winning.  They are used to people caving in and giving them everything they want.  They have intimidated most people into inaction with their aggressive attacks, and they appear to care little about anyone other than themselves.

The homosexual “special rights” agenda is real, as this article has shown.  No amount of professional homophile distraction, ridicule or censorship will cover it up if Christians and others of good will stand up against it.  If we do not stop the “special rights” agenda while we still can, we will soon be living under a regime bereft of freedom or democracy.

 

Endnotes

[1] One example of this is the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, who opposes bogus homosexual “marriage.”  He is one of the famous alumni of King’s College in London.  Homosexual groups are demanding that the College remove his portrait from its main building for this reason, thus erasing him from its memory.  (Thaddeus Baklinski.  “UK College Considers Taking Down Photo of Famous Alumnus Because He Opposes Gay ‘Marriage.’”  LifeSite Daily News, February 27, 2015.)

[2] Robert Knight.  “If All Else Fails, Silence Them!”  WorldNetDaily.com, September 1, 2004.

[3] Kirsten Andersen.  “Christians May be Barred from Office, City Employment, or Contracts under New San Antonio LGBT Law.”  LifeSite Daily News, September 6, 2013.

[4] Kirsten Anderson.  “Air Force Sergeant Claims He was Fired for Refusing to Endorse Gay ‘Marriage’: Faces Court Martial.”  LifeSite Daily News, September 10, 2013.

[5] Hilary White.  “‘You Do Not Want a Real Debate in This Country’: Fmr. Deputy Calls Anti-Homophobia Law Stifling.'”  LifeSite Daily News, August 6, 2013.

[6] “Bill Barring ‘Mom,’ ‘Dad’ from Texts Passes.”  WorldNetDaily, May 11, 2006.

[7] “Man Raped and Murdered Woman Because She Vocally Opposed Gay Lifestyle, Says Defense Lawyer.”  LifeSiteNews Daily News, November 2, 2006.

Web postings by people supporting and applauding the brutal murder of 51‑year‑old Mary Stachowicz by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez, quoted in Allyson Smith, “‘Gay’ Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause.”  Concerned Women for America website at cwfa.org, December 4, 2002.

[8] Hilary White.  “Stop Foreign Aid to Nigeria for Banning Gay “Marriage:” European Union’s Homosexual Rights Group.”  LifeSite Daily News, January 21, 2009.

See also Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D.  “European Parliament Votes to Impose Heavy Sanctions against Pro-Family African Nations.”  LifeSite News, March 14, 2014.

[9] Francine Dube.  “Gay Blood Donor Lies in Protest of Policy.”  National Post, June 11, 1999.

[10]  See the Wikipedia entry “Gay Male Blood Donor Controversy.”

[11] Nimisha Sachdev.  “Improper Blood Donation Led to Disaster in Canada.”  French Journal, Mary 18, 2013. See also “Canada’s Tainted Blood Disaster,” the Krever Report.

[12] Peter Baklinski.  “Canada Poised to Partially Lift Ban on Gay Men giving Blood.”  LifeSite Daily News, November 28, 2012.

[13] See also “Activists Hold First Gay, Bisexual Blood Drive to Get FDA to Change Rules.”  CBS News, July 12, 2013.

[14] Anne Kyle.  “High Court Reserves Ruling on Biblical Scriptures.”  Regina [Saskatchewan] Leader-Post, September 16, 2005.

“Respect is a Two-Way Street ― Christians Suffer for Opposing Homosexuality.”  Zenit, May 31, 2009.

Stephen Beale.  “Gay Persecution of Christians:  The Latest Evidence.”  Crisis Magazine, October 10, 2013.

[15] See the Dignity USA website for extensive literature on this theme.  Also see the several websites of the Rainbow Sash Movement.

[16] “Lawsuit Filed against Priest for Denying Communion to Gay Activist.”  Catholic News Agency, February 17, 2005.

[17] Gudrun Schultz.  “Arrest Suspended for Colombian Catholic Archbishop over Dismissal of Homosexual Seminarian.”  LifeSite Daily News, April 27, 2007.

[18] Peter Saunders.  “Gay Man Who Wants to Become Priest Takes Bishop to Human Rights Tribunal for ‘Discrimination.'”  LifeSite Daily News, May 6, 2013.

[19] Vera Kichanova.  “Russia’s Other New Oppressive Law:  In Russia, It’s Essentially against the Law to Hurt Religious People’s Feelings.”  The Advocate, October 18, 2013.  http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2013/10/18/op-ed-russias-other-new-oppressive-law.

[20] “Police Enforce Science Denial at Grand Valley State University.”  Standing in the GAP [ProLife on Campus], September 2015.

[21] As one example of this stupid charge, Vice President Joe Biden said at a Black History Month event on February 25, 2014, “These guys [who support voter ID laws] never go away.  Hatred never, never goes away.  The zealotry of those who wish to limit the franchise cannot be smothered by reason” (Leah Barkoukis.  “Biden:  There’s ‘Hatred’ Behind Voter ID Laws.”  TownHall, February 26, 2014).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About the Author:

Brian Clowes, PhD
Dr. Brian Clowes has been HLI’s director of research since 1995 and is one of the most accomplished and respected intellectuals in the international pro-life movement. Best known as author of the most exhaustive pro-life informational resource volume The Facts of Life, and for his Pro-Life Basic Training Course, Brian is the author of nine books and over 500 scholarly and popular articles, and has traveled to 70 countries on six continents as a pro-life speaker, educator and trainer.

Leave A Comment